OUR LAWS.

Thames Star, Volume XI, Issue 3607, 19 July 1880, Page 2

OUR LAWS.

(To the Editor of the EvnrnrftSu*.) Sib,—A motion is now before the Hooae of Representatives that the Bible, shall, be taught in our public.schools. I wish, sir, with your permission to enquire of the promoters of the, above, whether it is in accordance with the precepts of the Bible that it is to be foroed on the people by law, whether they do not' believe in the bible who think it quite voluntary, and ai to the seconder of the motion I should like to be answered whether the JBiMe, he learnt teaches him to prdinise one thins to the people before he is a member ana break that promise after hell one.;, Sir* it is said example is better than precept, would our rulers show sbnte of the beneficial results, of .the teaching of the Bible in themselves by passing law* in harmony with its teaching* instead of those 1 diametrically opposed to it, there might be some hope of living without isms and schisms.—l am &c., , P.B.P.

19th July 1880.

ldkg ldklf d df

To the Editor of the EYZHUIG Bt*B.

Sib,—Without i entering ;ioto «ny discussion as to other matters relating to the agitation whioh has lately taken;place here in regard, to licensing and other affairs, there is one question of a practical kind which" I wish to bring wider the notice of the miners and the pttblie of the Thames~-that is, Whether" any diaeretionary power in respect of the enforcei ment of Miners' Bights fees'exists in the I locality, and if so, whohas: the'exercise ,ofit P lam personally prepared I for the existence of several cues,; not only, of hardship, but of extot^hiardjihip, which I know of, in the way ofaeniands for fees having been made on men in most neoessitouß, circumstances, w whose I families, are , actually . pressed for the means of subsistence. It is neither necessary nor fitting thatJl;afaeuld mention the names of those persons in writing to a newspaper, but any-private inquiries nude of me will be satisraetorily answered. Therefore I consider that it is time that the 'exerciser of J jMcae discretionary power, or at; teasi, of discretionary forbearance, was provided for.—l am, &c, "' ''" '"'"*

. ,- i. • WItLIAX L. liODKB. Thames, 19th July, 1880. [P.S.—The only dweretionary power is in the hands of the E.M., and that only in so far as he may not infiiot any fine upon persons brought before hint for working - without rights, r or - may allow time to such persons to procure them. Under the terms by 1 whiichthii goldfield was ceded ■to the Govlranient \ each person engaged in mining pursuits is required to hold a right:—Ed. Stab.]

■tarving, because he had not qualified himself for his little hut ? This occurred in Colonel Fraser's time. Why did he not "wink " at that poor fellow's position P He was without work of any description. He states he put three questions ■ to Mr Kenrick before commencing the inquiry, but he altogether omits to state the reply he received, namely, that he had no power to comply with his requests—the inquiry was a private and departmental one, and ha would be exceeding his, duty if he allowed the representatives of the Press to be present—that I did not appear in ray capacity of solicitor, but merely to facilitate the inquiry, and to produce the witnesses in support of the petition. I put no questions even to any of my witnesses. Again he is wrong in his statement as to sending in his written defence, which, by the bye, was his own choice, not Mr Kenrick's—the first meeting was on a Wednesday. Mr Me. fixed the Saturday following as the day convenient for himself to send in his written state ment—instead of sending it in on that day lie neglects it and goes to Auckland. Mr Kenrick delays forwarding his report until the following Thursday, when he sends a messenger to Mr Me.'s house, the Warwick Arms Hotel, reminding him of the necessity of his ttatement being sent in at once, and theri leartu Mr Me is supposed to have gone to Wellington. Was Mr Kenrick to wait an unlimited time when it should quit His Highness to attend to his own business, after waiting from the previous Saturday, and that without any request for delay ? The man lost nothing—his statement was forwarded at once on its receipt, and a telegram also informing the Minister it was posted. Truly he had much cause for complaint J. < Mr Me does not like his bread and butter taken away from him, as he says, by Mr Kenrick. I altogether deny that that lentleman has had any hand m taking that substantial food from him—m relation to the petition at all event!— but I charge him with taking bis bread •nd batter from the native owners for some years past and neglecting to perform the duties for which he received his pay— mine the influence he thus obtained for the purposes of revenge ana the acqoisition of power to himself, wholly discarding the interest! of those who paid him— in fact he has well acted the part of the 'tiniußt steward. One word as to the proceedings I have been compelled to take against him. I have the written authority of forty-two native owners (44 are stated to be the whole of the native ewners of this goldfield), acknowledged by the authorities at Wellington. With this authority I am instructed^ (1) to inspect the accounts at the Wardens andf Native Offices from the proclamation of the field to the present time as well as all future accounts •tsame offices, and (2) to get Mcllhone disiaiswd by all lawful means and *t any price. As to the Ist, I have obtained from Wellington the necessary authority to inspect, take copies, and vouch the accounts at botU offices; and I have taken aueh means as seem to me just to obtain the 2nd object for my cHenU—6ae of which was opposition to the Warwick ' Arms license. The business of this house was well known to belong virtually, if not ictually to Mcllhone. At the time of the inquiry I stated on behalf of the petitioners that the fact of his " connection with the Warwick Arms Hotel tended to their disadvantage," he replied—" he had nothing to do with the bturaesiH-he was only a boarder in the house; Upon that I deemed it expedient to have the question proved before a court of law, and the Annual Licensing Meeting gave me a good opportunity for so doing, and the Jesuit prove* I was right;. My object waste strengthen my case, as if unsuc cessful with the Minister I might receive a more favorable hearing from a Committee of the House, to whom I intended immediately to appeal had the Minister not dismissed him. In opposing in my own name I claim to have adopted a more manly course than that of using the name of a dummy, as I might have done. Mr instructions were to get; rid of mm by all lawful means properly in my power, and this was one of,the means to that end. Petspnal spite I have none -ronlj so far as it hasi been engendered by himself in the course of the proceedings. The man is to be pitied for losing a good < comfortable billet,^ with nothing to do, and well paid for doing it; but he must take all the blame upon him- . self in having neglected bis employers intereito.rfam; &c.i -M H. E. Camfbell. 17th July, 1880—Adtt.